I was hoping you experts might be able to answer a newbie question or at least point me in the right direction to a resource.
I have been recording in Logic for 6-7 years at 41K. I just moved to Cubase SX on PC. But, I’ve picked up a number of devices and software over the past couple years (MOTU 828 MK2, EMU 1820M, dbx Preamps…) that support 96K+. I was thinking that I would start moving to a higher sample rate. I've seen quite a few people here that say "go to 88, not 96". and oothers who say "stay at 44!" So, a couple questions:
1.) 44, 88 or 96K?
2.) f I record at 88-96 and down-sample at mixdown, will I get much benefit from this (I am not HDD limited--running 2 DAWs linked via system Link--both P4 3.0s with 1.5Gb Ram)
3.) If I run Cubase at 88-96 but want to use a device (synth or EFX) that only outputs at 41K, am I stuck with analog or can I somehow use the 41K device (other than doing everything that can be done at 96, then downsampleing that to 41 and add 41 stuff)?. Is this worth the hassle?
Before I go spending money and a ton of time converting to 88-96K, I need some help from you experts as to whether it’s really worth it. I have quite a bit of very nice gear and a lot of vintage instruments so I think my inputs are worth of the effort if the effort will make a substantial difference.
Thx to all of you for your tremendous input on everything!
Topic Tags
Comments
it really depends on your goals and what recordings you do! if y
it really depends on your goals and what recordings you do! if you plan on recording demos 96 may be unecessary but if you record bands that have great quality and are thinking of launching a dvd try recording at 96! what i suggest is that buy things that aren't on the verge of being useless... and try recording at 96 if you have the space in the disc and see the differences! people tend to notice much from 16 bits to 24, but from 44100 to 96 not so much... it's like that commercial... coke or pepsi? blind folded? can you guess? lol... :-)